Re: running OS 9.2 from a folder vs a partition.
On Feb 18, 2010, at 10:41 PM, deadwinter wrote: Hi folks: I thought I had a partition for 10.2 and another for OS9.2, but upon closer examination it looks like I have OS 10.2 and a folder labeled OS9 applications, OS 9 System, etc. In the Startup Disk control panel, I can choose that the system use the OS9 system folder, which will make it boot into OS9, and viceversa. Can someone enlighten me as to why the previous owner would run it like this as opposed to there being two separate partitions? Do I gain anything? Lose anything? -carlos AFAIK there's really no need to have separate partitions for these systems . I've got 9 machines that have OS 10.4.11 and OS 9.2.2. It's handy for me because I use both systems and CCCs are a snap. But there's no reason you can't have them separate if you want it that way. John Carmonne Yorba Linda USA -- You received this message because you are a member of G-Group, a group for those using G3, G4, and G5 desktop Macs - with a particular focus on Power Macs. The list FAQ is at http://lowendmac.com/lists/g-list.shtml and our netiquette guide is at http://www.lowendmac.com/lists/netiquette.shtml To post to this group, send email to g3-5-list@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/g3-5-list
Re: running OS 9.2 from a folder vs a partition.
On Feb 19, 2010, at 2:11 AM, Clark Martin wrote: On 2/18/10 10:41 PM, deadwinter wrote: Hi folks: I thought I had a partition for 10.2 and another for OS9.2, but upon closer examination it looks like I have OS 10.2 and a folder labeled OS9 applications, OS 9 System, etc. In the Startup Disk control panel, I can choose that the system use the OS9 system folder, which will make it boot into OS9, and viceversa. Can someone enlighten me as to why the previous owner would run it like this as opposed to there being two separate partitions? Do I gain anything? Lose anything? Usually, on a Mac list, that easiest way to generate a lot of e-mail messages is to ask about, suggest, or otherwise bring up partitioning. You'll get those who swear the more partitions the better and those who insist there is no point in more than one. This goes back to pre OS 9 days, the OS 9 / X partitioning question just added more fuel to the fire. That said, for what it's worth. The bulk of my systems are single partition. All the machines I've set up with X and 9 have had both on one partition and it has worked just fine for me. It's easy to install and switch between them. I don't like to partition unless I have to because it reduces flexibility. I'd hate to have to go and copy a couple of partitions to another disk then re-partition the disk then copy things back because one got full. It's enough of a pain when the whole disk runs out of room. I would be concerned of booting or starting up in OS 9 (which, when in a folder on the same partition, you may not be able to do???), and things being changed on the partition under OS 9, and then restarting under OS X and X being messed up. If you just used OS 9 as a Classic OS (starting up through OS X), I feel that would be ok. I really don't know ... but I admit ... I am a Partition Addict: OS X 10.5 OS X 10.4 OS 9.2.2 Apps Docs There. I said it (again). (Any Hi Bill's out there?) I believe such a scheme messes up OS X's natural ability to manage the unused space ... not sure about this ... Gurus? -- You received this message because you are a member of G-Group, a group for those using G3, G4, and G5 desktop Macs - with a particular focus on Power Macs. The list FAQ is at http://lowendmac.com/lists/g-list.shtml and our netiquette guide is at http://www.lowendmac.com/lists/netiquette.shtml To post to this group, send email to g3-5-list@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/g3-5-list
Re: running OS 9.2 from a folder vs a partition.
On Feb 19, 2010, at 6:46 AM, Bill Connelly wrote: On Feb 19, 2010, at 2:11 AM, Clark Martin wrote: On 2/18/10 10:41 PM, deadwinter wrote: Hi folks: I thought I had a partition for 10.2 and another for OS9.2, but upon closer examination it looks like I have OS 10.2 and a folder labeled OS9 applications, OS 9 System, etc. In the Startup Disk control panel, I can choose that the system use the OS9 system folder, which will make it boot into OS9, and viceversa. Can someone enlighten me as to why the previous owner would run it like this as opposed to there being two separate partitions? Do I gain anything? Lose anything? Usually, on a Mac list, that easiest way to generate a lot of e-mail messages is to ask about, suggest, or otherwise bring up partitioning. You'll get those who swear the more partitions the better and those who insist there is no point in more than one. This goes back to pre OS 9 days, the OS 9 / X partitioning question just added more fuel to the fire. That said, for what it's worth. The bulk of my systems are single partition. All the machines I've set up with X and 9 have had both on one partition and it has worked just fine for me. It's easy to install and switch between them. I don't like to partition unless I have to because it reduces flexibility. I'd hate to have to go and copy a couple of partitions to another disk then re-partition the disk then copy things back because one got full. It's enough of a pain when the whole disk runs out of room. I would be concerned of booting or starting up in OS 9 (which, when in a folder on the same partition, you may not be able to do???), and things being changed on the partition under OS 9, and then restarting under OS X and X being messed up. If you just used OS 9 as a Classic OS (starting up through OS X), I feel that would be ok. I really don't know ... but I admit ... I am a Partition Addict: OS X 10.5 OS X 10.4 OS 9.2.2 Apps Docs There. I said it (again). (Any Hi Bill's out there?) I believe such a scheme messes up OS X's natural ability to manage the unused space ... not sure about this ... Gurus? No fear necessary. John Carmonne Yorba Linda USA -- You received this message because you are a member of G-Group, a group for those using G3, G4, and G5 desktop Macs - with a particular focus on Power Macs. The list FAQ is at http://lowendmac.com/lists/g-list.shtml and our netiquette guide is at http://www.lowendmac.com/lists/netiquette.shtml To post to this group, send email to g3-5-list@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/g3-5-list
Re: running OS 9.2 from a folder vs a partition.
On 18 Feb 2010, at 23:30:14 PST, Clark Martin wrote: On 2/18/10 11:09 PM, Ken Daggett wrote: On my new Pismo, I installed a 4GB HD I had on hand. I installed 10.4.11 and then installed OS 9 on the same drive, no partitions. OUCH, 4Gb! You must like living in closets too. I have a new Pismo too. It's a little roomier, 120 Gb, but it is partitioned for Tiger and Fedora. --- Sorry, fat fingered the keyboard. That was a 40 GB Hd. Ken http://mysite.verizon.net/res7gt1w/stackomacs -- You received this message because you are a member of G-Group, a group for those using G3, G4, and G5 desktop Macs - with a particular focus on Power Macs. The list FAQ is at http://lowendmac.com/lists/g-list.shtml and our netiquette guide is at http://www.lowendmac.com/lists/netiquette.shtml To post to this group, send email to g3-5-list@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/g3-5-list
Re: running OS 9.2 from a folder vs a partition.
On Feb 18, 2010, at 11:41 PM, deadwinter wrote: Hi folks: I thought I had a partition for 10.2 and another for OS9.2, but upon closer examination it looks like I have OS 10.2 and a folder labeled OS9 applications, OS 9 System, etc. In the Startup Disk control panel, I can choose that the system use the OS9 system folder, which will make it boot into OS9, and viceversa. Can someone enlighten me as to why the previous owner would run it like this as opposed to there being two separate partitions? Do I gain anything? Lose anything? The way it is is the default way Apple installed OS X, so the previous owner didn't do anything. In the VERY early days of OS X (prior to 10.2) I reccomended using a separate partition for OS 9 because it seemed to be more stable. After 10.2 it's not necessary unless you want one environment with just the basics for Classic, under OS X and one environment with tons of extensions, etc for OS 9, in which case a partition makes a lot of sense. -- Bruce Johnson University of Arizona College of Pharmacy Information Technology Group Institutions do not have opinions, merely customs -- You received this message because you are a member of G-Group, a group for those using G3, G4, and G5 desktop Macs - with a particular focus on Power Macs. The list FAQ is at http://lowendmac.com/lists/g-list.shtml and our netiquette guide is at http://www.lowendmac.com/lists/netiquette.shtml To post to this group, send email to g3-5-list@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/g3-5-list
Re: running OS 9.2 from a folder vs a partition.
On Feb 18, 11:41 pm, deadwinter thecar...@gmail.com wrote: I thought I had a partition for 10.2 and another for OS9.2, but upon closer examination it looks like I have OS 10.2 and a folder labeled OS9 applications, OS 9 System, etc. In the Startup Disk control panel, I can choose that the system use the OS9 system folder, which will make it boot into OS9, and viceversa. Can someone enlighten me as to why the previous owner would run it like this as opposed to there being two separate partitions? Do I gain anything? Lose anything? As Bruce said, what you have is the default configuration for using Classic mode inside of OSX. Its fine as-is if that is what you are doing. If you REALLY, literally mean booting into OS 9, I would strongly suggest adding it to a separate partition and booting off the separate partition. The reason for this is that when OS 9 crashes, it has a tendency to mess up not only its own preferences, but the directory structure of the boot disk. This latter is not at all good for rebooting under either OS later on. You are far better off with an expendable partition that can easily be restored by cloning from a backup. Back in the Bad Old Days when I was using the Mac OS for productivity, I would always partition the disk and keep my data files on a separate partition. That way, when I crashed only the boot partition would be messed up; my data files were almost always safe. We are spoiled by the fantastic reliability of OSX, and tend to forget how often application crashes would bring down the older Mac systems. -- You received this message because you are a member of G-Group, a group for those using G3, G4, and G5 desktop Macs - with a particular focus on Power Macs. The list FAQ is at http://lowendmac.com/lists/g-list.shtml and our netiquette guide is at http://www.lowendmac.com/lists/netiquette.shtml To post to this group, send email to g3-5-list@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/g3-5-list
Re: running OS 9.2 from a folder vs a partition.
Oh, I used a Quadra in school. I haven't forgotten (or forgiven) System 7. Anyway, the point (if there is one) of this G3 exercise of mine is to squeeze performance out of this poor thing. I want to establish if the way it's setup now would make a difference, performance wise. To be clear, I don't use Classic from 10.2. I set it up to boot from the OS9 system folder. Would this be less performant(sic?) than having its own partition, or is the real difference that OS9 could take the whole disk with it if it crashed? ...and on the heels of that, another question. Does this sort of thing make a difference when you're installing, say, a PCI FW/USB card? -carlos On Feb 19, 12:18 pm, Robert MacLeay rmacl...@gmail.com wrote: On Feb 18, 11:41 pm, deadwinter thecar...@gmail.com wrote: I thought I had a partition for 10.2 and another for OS9.2, but upon closer examination it looks like I have OS 10.2 and a folder labeled OS9 applications, OS 9 System, etc. In the Startup Disk control panel, I can choose that the system use the OS9 system folder, which will make it boot into OS9, and viceversa. Can someone enlighten me as to why the previous owner would run it like this as opposed to there being two separate partitions? Do I gain anything? Lose anything? As Bruce said, what you have is the default configuration for using Classic mode inside of OSX. Its fine as-is if that is what you are doing. If you REALLY, literally mean booting into OS 9, I would strongly suggest adding it to a separate partition and booting off the separate partition. The reason for this is that when OS 9 crashes, it has a tendency to mess up not only its own preferences, but the directory structure of the boot disk. This latter is not at all good for rebooting under either OS later on. You are far better off with an expendable partition that can easily be restored by cloning from a backup. Back in the Bad Old Days when I was using the Mac OS for productivity, I would always partition the disk and keep my data files on a separate partition. That way, when I crashed only the boot partition would be messed up; my data files were almost always safe. We are spoiled by the fantastic reliability of OSX, and tend to forget how often application crashes would bring down the older Mac systems. -- You received this message because you are a member of G-Group, a group for those using G3, G4, and G5 desktop Macs - with a particular focus on Power Macs. The list FAQ is at http://lowendmac.com/lists/g-list.shtml and our netiquette guide is at http://www.lowendmac.com/lists/netiquette.shtml To post to this group, send email to g3-5-list@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/g3-5-list
Re: running OS 9.2 from a folder vs a partition.
On Feb 19, 2010, at 5:26 PM, deadwinter wrote: Oh, I used a Quadra in school. I haven't forgotten (or forgiven) System 7. Anyway, the point (if there is one) of this G3 exercise of mine is to squeeze performance out of this poor thing. I want to establish if the way it's setup now would make a difference, performance wise. To be clear, I don't use Classic from 10.2. I set it up to boot from the OS9 system folder. Would this be less performant(sic?) than having its own partition, or is the real difference that OS9 could take the whole disk with it if it crashed? ...and on the heels of that, another question. Does this sort of thing make a difference when you're installing, say, a PCI FW/USB card? -carlos On Feb 19, 12:18 pm, Robert MacLeay rmacl...@gmail.com wrote: On Feb 18, 11:41 pm, deadwinter thecar...@gmail.com wrote: I thought I had a partition for 10.2 and another for OS9.2, but upon closer examination it looks like I have OS 10.2 and a folder labeled OS9 applications, OS 9 System, etc. In the Startup Disk control panel, I can choose that the system use the OS9 system folder, which will make it boot into OS9, and viceversa. Can someone enlighten me as to why the previous owner would run it like this as opposed to there being two separate partitions? Do I gain anything? Lose anything? As Bruce said, what you have is the default configuration for using Classic mode inside of OSX. Its fine as-is if that is what you are doing. If you REALLY, literally mean booting into OS 9, I would strongly suggest adding it to a separate partition and booting off the separate partition. The reason for this is that when OS 9 crashes, it has a tendency to mess up not only its own preferences, but the directory structure of the boot disk. This latter is not at all good for rebooting under either OS later on. You are far better off with an expendable partition that can easily be restored by cloning from a backup. Back in the Bad Old Days when I was using the Mac OS for productivity, I would always partition the disk and keep my data files on a separate partition. That way, when I crashed only the boot partition would be messed up; my data files were almost always safe. We are spoiled by the fantastic reliability of OSX, and tend to forget how often application crashes would bring down the older Mac systems. For what it's worth I've been dual booting 3 G3 iMacs since 2001 and never had a problem with 9.2.2 doing anything other than run properly and since Tiger it don't get no better than that combo. But that's just me:-) John Carmonne Yorba Linda USA -- You received this message because you are a member of G-Group, a group for those using G3, G4, and G5 desktop Macs - with a particular focus on Power Macs. The list FAQ is at http://lowendmac.com/lists/g-list.shtml and our netiquette guide is at http://www.lowendmac.com/lists/netiquette.shtml To post to this group, send email to g3-5-list@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/g3-5-list
Re: running OS 9.2 from a folder vs a partition.
On Feb 19, 2010, at 6:26 PM, deadwinter wrote: Oh, I used a Quadra in school. I haven't forgotten (or forgiven) System 7. Anyway, the point (if there is one) of this G3 exercise of mine is to squeeze performance out of this poor thing. I want to establish if the way it's setup now would make a difference, performance wise. To be clear, I don't use Classic from 10.2. I set it up to boot from the OS9 system folder. Would this be less performant(sic?) than having its own partition, or is the real difference that OS9 could take the whole disk with it if it crashed? ...and on the heels of that, another question. Does this sort of thing make a difference when you're installing, say, a PCI FW/USB card? If this is a BW G3 install Tiger, it's worth it :) Also, my USB card works on both OS'es on my G3 BW (has the NEC chipset) but because of some limitation it won't work with OS9 on my Molar Mac (beige G3 with built in monitor, think huge white iMac.) I'm not sure about OSX and the card on that machine though... -- You received this message because you are a member of G-Group, a group for those using G3, G4, and G5 desktop Macs - with a particular focus on Power Macs. The list FAQ is at http://lowendmac.com/lists/g-list.shtml and our netiquette guide is at http://www.lowendmac.com/lists/netiquette.shtml To post to this group, send email to g3-5-list@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/g3-5-list
running OS 9.2 from a folder vs a partition.
Hi folks: I thought I had a partition for 10.2 and another for OS9.2, but upon closer examination it looks like I have OS 10.2 and a folder labeled OS9 applications, OS 9 System, etc. In the Startup Disk control panel, I can choose that the system use the OS9 system folder, which will make it boot into OS9, and viceversa. Can someone enlighten me as to why the previous owner would run it like this as opposed to there being two separate partitions? Do I gain anything? Lose anything? -carlos -- You received this message because you are a member of G-Group, a group for those using G3, G4, and G5 desktop Macs - with a particular focus on Power Macs. The list FAQ is at http://lowendmac.com/lists/g-list.shtml and our netiquette guide is at http://www.lowendmac.com/lists/netiquette.shtml To post to this group, send email to g3-5-list@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/g3-5-list
Re: running OS 9.2 from a folder vs a partition.
On 18 Feb 2010, at 22:41:46 PST, deadwinter wrote: I thought I had a partition for 10.2 and another for OS9.2, but upon closer examination it looks like I have OS 10.2 and a folder labeled OS9 applications, OS 9 System, etc. In the Startup Disk control panel, I can choose that the system use the OS9 system folder, which will make it boot into OS9, and viceversa. Can someone enlighten me as to why the previous owner would run it like this as opposed to there being two separate partitions? Do I gain anything? Lose anything? -- Well, I do it both ways on different machines. No real difference in operation as far as I can see. On my MDD I have 3 physical drives installed at different times. Thus I had an OS 9 drive before I ever upgraded to OS X. On my new Pismo, I installed a 4GB HD I had on hand. I installed 10.4.11 and then installed OS 9 on the same drive, no partitions. Ken http://mysite.verizon.net/res7gt1w/stackomacs -- You received this message because you are a member of G-Group, a group for those using G3, G4, and G5 desktop Macs - with a particular focus on Power Macs. The list FAQ is at http://lowendmac.com/lists/g-list.shtml and our netiquette guide is at http://www.lowendmac.com/lists/netiquette.shtml To post to this group, send email to g3-5-list@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/g3-5-list
Re: running OS 9.2 from a folder vs a partition.
On 2/18/10 10:41 PM, deadwinter wrote: Hi folks: I thought I had a partition for 10.2 and another for OS9.2, but upon closer examination it looks like I have OS 10.2 and a folder labeled OS9 applications, OS 9 System, etc. In the Startup Disk control panel, I can choose that the system use the OS9 system folder, which will make it boot into OS9, and viceversa. Can someone enlighten me as to why the previous owner would run it like this as opposed to there being two separate partitions? Do I gain anything? Lose anything? Usually, on a Mac list, that easiest way to generate a lot of e-mail messages is to ask about, suggest, or otherwise bring up partitioning. You'll get those who swear the more partitions the better and those who insist there is no point in more than one. This goes back to pre OS 9 days, the OS 9 / X partitioning question just added more fuel to the fire. That said, for what it's worth. The bulk of my systems are single partition. All the machines I've set up with X and 9 have had both on one partition and it has worked just fine for me. It's easy to install and switch between them. I don't like to partition unless I have to because it reduces flexibility. I'd hate to have to go and copy a couple of partitions to another disk then re-partition the disk then copy things back because one got full. It's enough of a pain when the whole disk runs out of room. -- Clark Martin Redwood City, CA, USA Macintosh / Internet Consulting I'm a designated driver on the Information Super Highway -- You received this message because you are a member of G-Group, a group for those using G3, G4, and G5 desktop Macs - with a particular focus on Power Macs. The list FAQ is at http://lowendmac.com/lists/g-list.shtml and our netiquette guide is at http://www.lowendmac.com/lists/netiquette.shtml To post to this group, send email to g3-5-list@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/g3-5-list
Re: running OS 9.2 from a folder vs a partition.
On 2/18/10 11:09 PM, Ken Daggett wrote: On my new Pismo, I installed a 4GB HD I had on hand. I installed 10.4.11 and then installed OS 9 on the same drive, no partitions. OUCH, 4Gb! You must like living in closets too. I have a new Pismo too. It's a little roomier, 120 Gb, but it is partitioned for Tiger and Fedora. -- Clark Martin Redwood City, CA, USA Macintosh / Internet Consulting I'm a designated driver on the Information Super Highway -- You received this message because you are a member of G-Group, a group for those using G3, G4, and G5 desktop Macs - with a particular focus on Power Macs. The list FAQ is at http://lowendmac.com/lists/g-list.shtml and our netiquette guide is at http://www.lowendmac.com/lists/netiquette.shtml To post to this group, send email to g3-5-list@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/g3-5-list
